@deficithawker - Wow, you deliberately misconstrue my argument. The point that made Clinton's years good weren't the spending decreases. The point that makes the Clinton's years good is the fact that spending remained FLAT, while GDP INCREASED! If Democrat leadership were allowed to put in HillaryCare, this would NOT be true.
Then, you make the Bush parallel as if that's what I was arguing for. This is a blatant straw-man.
The problem is that there is a paradox in which lower tax RATE often translates into higher tax RECIEPTS. IOW, You get MORE revenue with LOWER tax rates because people have more, and make more, and then have to pay more in taxes. Kind of like the business that lowers prices because profits are slumping and come out better than if they had raised prices or even kept them the same.
"You don't cure an alcoholic by giving him more to drink." Great quote by Dan Mitchell.
There is no such thing as "paying for tax cuts" - only "paying for government programs" (or deflating the value of the USD). Be sure to save a few dollars whenever you can - you are going to need something to wipe your butt with once toilet paper is outlawed.
Mike: You misrepresent Dan. He did not say TAXES were better under Clinton, but said the spending was under control. The reason spending was under control was the 1994 Contract With America.
Right now regulation is causing companies to run in circles for no valid reason. That restricts our economic liberty and lowers our standard of living. Reducing regulations is just as important as reducing taxes and government spending.
Governments never cut spending, they just raise taxes. It is a false hope to expect the same people who increased the spending to cut the spending.
When in that entire video did Dan say the tax rates were better? All the guy said was if he could cut spending by nearly 10%, letting the cuts expire would be less effective. What the guy from The Center for American Regress fails to realize is that if spending goes down, the government will have no justification for the higher taxes and politicians will have to cut taxes because having money sitting and away from their rightful owners is untenable.
Here's a quick way to make massive savings in federal spending.
Cut off all direct and indirect foreign aid. That includes the hundreds of billions that the United States spends guaranteeing the security of Europe and East Asia.
I'm all for patrolling the shipping lanes. But we don't need 50 thousand troops in South Korea. They are big boys with a large enough economy to defend themselves. The same goes for Japan.
@AngrySkeptic Not just SK and Japan; Africa and Latin America as well. Its time to return to fortress America. Cato needs to bring up foreign policy more often.
OPM baby, Other People's Money. It's the best hustle going. Glad Dan pointed out that the real issue is the spending. Love the line about giving the alcoholic more alcohol. If a tax increase was coming, they would have the first ten years of projected revenue spent in their first year's budget, guaranteed.
Michael Linden = lying, statist, collectivist douchebag
1) We wouldn't need to borrow the money if we decreased spending
2) Tax cuts are meaningless if spending isn't cut because the difference is inflation
3) Revenue will never increase given the current high taxes and burdensome regulation which progressives like Mike are so found of
4) The problem is not "raising money" but rather this country has the highest tax income in the history of the world yet schmucks like Mike will always want more
You know I used to believe that pinkos think they can run the economy on wishes and pixie dust - but it looks like the guys at CAP are snorting it.
That's like my teenage daughter coming to me after maxing out her credit cards, demanding an increase in her allowance, me capitulating that it's my fault because I don't give her enough, and then I'm perplexed later when I discover she went and increased her card limit.
Though the analogy is harsh because teens are smarter than politicians.
Fuck paying off the national debt. The population is forced into slavery; their future labour used as the collateral to pay off a debt that they didn't incur. The debt should be cancelled, not reduced by raising taxes and lowering spending.
Just like you don't cure an Alcoholic by giving him more to drink, you certainly don't stop a politician from spending more money by giving him more tax revenue. To cut the Fed and State Gov't budget burden you need to cut back on all the unecessary crap they spend the money on every freaking household in the world knows that. Michael Linden as just 2/10's of a percent from being a complete "useful idiot".
@deficithawker - Wow, you deliberately misconstrue my argument. The point that made Clinton's years good weren't the spending decreases. The point that makes the Clinton's years good is the fact that spending remained FLAT, while GDP INCREASED! If Democrat leadership were allowed to put in HillaryCare, this would NOT be true.
Then, you make the Bush parallel as if that's what I was arguing for. This is a blatant straw-man.
Slipknotyk06 11 months ago
Too great.
thecfazz 1 year ago
Yay, Cato!
Yay, Dan Mitchell!!
freesk8 1 year ago
Comment removed
chiefsfanguitar 1 year ago
The problem is that there is a paradox in which lower tax RATE often translates into higher tax RECIEPTS. IOW, You get MORE revenue with LOWER tax rates because people have more, and make more, and then have to pay more in taxes. Kind of like the business that lowers prices because profits are slumping and come out better than if they had raised prices or even kept them the same.
"You don't cure an alcoholic by giving him more to drink." Great quote by Dan Mitchell.
gmbrannan 1 year ago
There is no such thing as "paying for tax cuts" - only "paying for government programs" (or deflating the value of the USD). Be sure to save a few dollars whenever you can - you are going to need something to wipe your butt with once toilet paper is outlawed.
EZmpc 1 year ago 2
Mike: You misrepresent Dan. He did not say TAXES were better under Clinton, but said the spending was under control. The reason spending was under control was the 1994 Contract With America.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
mikheii 1 year ago 3
Center for American Progress should just be called, "Center for Statism"
FCmagic01 1 year ago 9
thumbs up
yougiberishtube 1 year ago 2
Right now regulation is causing companies to run in circles for no valid reason. That restricts our economic liberty and lowers our standard of living. Reducing regulations is just as important as reducing taxes and government spending.
Governments never cut spending, they just raise taxes. It is a false hope to expect the same people who increased the spending to cut the spending.
XCritonX 1 year ago 2
The reporter kept trying to twist Dan's words but even with the two fools ganging up on him he did pretty good.
Buffalo122333 1 year ago 3
Nice finish Dan!
continuityofliberty 1 year ago 10
When in that entire video did Dan say the tax rates were better? All the guy said was if he could cut spending by nearly 10%, letting the cuts expire would be less effective. What the guy from The Center for American Regress fails to realize is that if spending goes down, the government will have no justification for the higher taxes and politicians will have to cut taxes because having money sitting and away from their rightful owners is untenable.
Thebboss 1 year ago
Taxation is Terrorism.
If you refuse to give the mafia err I mean the government it's cut of your earnings. They put you in a dungeon.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago 3
lol they keep putting these two up against each other. it isn't even a match. this kid just has a lot to learn.
tmac9938 1 year ago 16
Here's a quick way to make massive savings in federal spending.
Cut off all direct and indirect foreign aid. That includes the hundreds of billions that the United States spends guaranteeing the security of Europe and East Asia.
I'm all for patrolling the shipping lanes. But we don't need 50 thousand troops in South Korea. They are big boys with a large enough economy to defend themselves. The same goes for Japan.
AngrySkeptic 1 year ago 3
@AngrySkeptic Not just SK and Japan; Africa and Latin America as well. Its time to return to fortress America. Cato needs to bring up foreign policy more often.
chevydriver1123 1 year ago
OPM baby, Other People's Money. It's the best hustle going. Glad Dan pointed out that the real issue is the spending. Love the line about giving the alcoholic more alcohol. If a tax increase was coming, they would have the first ten years of projected revenue spent in their first year's budget, guaranteed.
TreachMarkets 1 year ago 3
Center for American Progress = Commies for American Progress
ForTehNguyen 1 year ago 3
Michael Linden = lying, statist, collectivist douchebag
1) We wouldn't need to borrow the money if we decreased spending
2) Tax cuts are meaningless if spending isn't cut because the difference is inflation
3) Revenue will never increase given the current high taxes and burdensome regulation which progressives like Mike are so found of
4) The problem is not "raising money" but rather this country has the highest tax income in the history of the world yet schmucks like Mike will always want more
chuska8383 1 year ago 3
You know I used to believe that pinkos think they can run the economy on wishes and pixie dust - but it looks like the guys at CAP are snorting it.
That's like my teenage daughter coming to me after maxing out her credit cards, demanding an increase in her allowance, me capitulating that it's my fault because I don't give her enough, and then I'm perplexed later when I discover she went and increased her card limit.
Though the analogy is harsh because teens are smarter than politicians.
IRONMANAustralia 1 year ago 4
This leftie puke doesn't even know what he's fighting for.
TheKuffarKid 1 year ago 2
Would you trust Congress to put hundreds of billions of dollars toward cutting down the deficit?
MooseOfReason 1 year ago 5
Poor Dan Mitchell for having to deal with such economic illiterates. *sigh*
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago 32
Fuck paying off the national debt. The population is forced into slavery; their future labour used as the collateral to pay off a debt that they didn't incur. The debt should be cancelled, not reduced by raising taxes and lowering spending.
dvide 1 year ago
Just like you don't cure an Alcoholic by giving him more to drink, you certainly don't stop a politician from spending more money by giving him more tax revenue. To cut the Fed and State Gov't budget burden you need to cut back on all the unecessary crap they spend the money on every freaking household in the world knows that. Michael Linden as just 2/10's of a percent from being a complete "useful idiot".
Leavon 1 year ago
Dan=correct as always. Even though there wasn't really an argument.
kamikazee55 1 year ago 6